Posted on 05/11/2008 2:46:57 PM PDT by The_Republican
The media have become an interesting institution over the past 10 years. Journalists more often let their feelings or their editorial comments infiltrate news reports, not just op-eds or editorials.
There are exceptions, but the media in general are great at building people up and then tearing them down. Interesting thing is, so many people are intrigued by it. Some actually love it.
It would be wise for all elected officials, pro athletes and Hollywood types to remember what one of my football coaches once said: "When people put you on a pedestal, that's their fault. If you believe it, that's your fault."
The junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, has learned over the past few weeks that he's clearly the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. The media have made him a much bigger target and a much bigger fish.
And Sen. John McCain has discovered the media no longer perceive him as "the maverick from Arizona," which they loved because he wreaked havoc on Republicans. Now that he's the GOP nominee, they look at him quite differently.
This brings me back to the issue of recent coverage of Obama. Obama has surely produced some self-inflicted wounds over the past two months -- saying rural Americans cling to their faith and guns, for instance. Nevertheless, some of the inconsistencies or true oversights we've seen in the coverage of Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton have been interesting.
Agree with me or not, but I don't think Obama should be judged by what his pastor says or preaches. I believe Obama is wrong on many policy fronts, but I've never seen anything from him that would give me the impression he is a radical extremist. Liberal? Without doubt. But I can't accept that he sees the world through the Jeremiah Wright prism.
The Clinton campaign and the media took Obama to task over his association with the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Some were asking if he would disavow his relationship with and decline the endorsement of Farrakhan. He did both.
A little known fact that went unnoticed in the Pennsylvania primary was that the highest-ranking elected official in the Keystone State -- and the person most responsible for Clinton's 10-point win -- had at one time heaped praise on Farrakhan.
Ed Rendell, the state's Democrat governor and the very effective spokesman for Clinton's campaign there, generiously praised Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam 11 years ago. This is an issue because for so many people, Farrakhan is poisonous. It is safe to say his tone makes many voters nervous.
Rendell, who was then the mayor of Philadelphia, praised Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam's Philadelphia leadership at a rally in 1997. He expressed his "respect for the nation of Islam" and praised local Islam leader Rodney Mohammed for "the intensity of his beliefs, for the decency of his soul, and for the strength of his courage."
Through her relationship with Rendell, Clinton and her team have as close -- or closer -- a tie to Farrakhan as does Obama.
However, it was Obama who got tied to the Farrakhan wagon, and not Clinton. She got a pass. I found it interesting that Rendell was not asked to distance himself from Farrakhan or the Nation of Islam in order to support Clinton.
Nor should he have been asked to. Clinton was not asked to distance herself from Rendell for his praising of Farrakhan, and the notion was never raised by the media or anyone else.
We often read columns, watch the news and listen to debates with our own biased political filter. Republicans and Democrats alike are guilty of this. We usually don't like the comments made by an analyst unless they lean toward our point of view. As is said in politics, there are three sides to every story. Your side, my side, and the truth.
In the case of the tangled web between Obama, Clinton and Farrakhan, we didn't get Obama's side or the truth. We got Clinton's side.
The bottom line is this: Neither Louis Farrakhan or Jeremiah Wright should determine this election, no more than certain endorsements of John McCain should determine the general election.
I am more concerned about who can keep America safe from terrorists, who can create opportunity for all, who has the best plan for educating our kids (1.2 million kids drop out of school every year), and who best understands that real change doesn't require just talk, but real, genuine change.
That will probably be all I will think about for the rest of my life.
You Self-righteous dipwad.
Go walk west until your hat floats.
J.C. is a good guy, as far as I can tell ... but anyone who thinks we elect a President to create opportunity for all and educate our kids is no conservative.
It's pitiful how Republicans and supposed conservatives have completely ceded the field on the Constitutional role of government.
As do I but this discussion was about J.C. Watts and the wisdom or lack of his comments on how to judge the Obama and Wright association. Don' get your panties in a wad, because you changed the subject.
It is you who has “your panties in a wad” and is absurdly self righteous. One of the more ignorant posters I’ve seen in a long time too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.